bikefix

whither bikefix?

noreply@blogger.com (bikefix) — Tue, 25 Aug 2020 02:00:00 +0000

In order to better focus on in-depth riding and reviews, the bikefix crew have packed up and will now be reviewing gear at Bikerumor.com!
Bikerumor has long been our favorite stop for timely cycling and gear-related news- but we always thought that they were a bit thin when it came to verbose reviews and overly complicated sentence structure. So come on over! We'll be doing what we do and hopefully bringing a new, different, and interesting perspective to a whole bunch more riders. Thanks to everyone who's made the past few years possible and the next few so promising!

marc & charlie

Bikerumor Review: Louis Garneau Montana XT2 shoes

noreply@blogger.com (bikefix) — Tue, 26 Oct 2010 02:00:00 +0000

Check out our latest review over at bikerumor.com: Bomber mountain shoes from Louis Garneau!

Bikerumor Review: Osprey Raptor 18 hydration pack

noreply@blogger.com (bikefix) — Tue, 19 Oct 2010 02:00:00 +0000

They're new to the bike party- but brought along loads of experience and a different perspective. We review Osprey's Raptor 18 at Bikerumor.com.

Bikerumor Review: WTB Wolverine 26×2.2 AM TCS tire

noreply@blogger.com (bikefix) — Tue, 19 Oct 2010 02:00:00 +0000

Big. Knobby. Tubeless. Can WTB's Wolverine impress our resident tire fetishists? Find out at Bikerumor.com!

Bikerumor Review: Swiftwick Ole Armwarmers

noreply@blogger.com (bikefix) — Tue, 12 Oct 2010 02:25:00 +0000

Our favorite arm warmers. Ever. Read about them at Bikerumor.com!

Bikerumor Review: Smith Pivlock V90 sunglasses

noreply@blogger.com (bikefix) — Tue, 05 Oct 2010 02:00:00 +0000

Why is nearly everyone on bikefix rides wearing Smith's Pivlock sunglasses? Find out why at Bikerumor.com.

Bikerumor Review: KT Tape

noreply@blogger.com (bikefix) — Tue, 14 Sep 2010 02:00:00 +0000

It's a new week and time for another review! Check out our review of KT Tape here at Bikerumor.com!

marc

Bikerumor Review: HammerSchmidt for singlespeed XC? Not so fast…

noreply@blogger.com (bikefix) — Fri, 10 Sep 2010 02:00:00 +0000

Charlie makes his Bikerumor debut with his interesting take on TruVativ's HammerSchmidt crankset here on Bikerumor.com!

charlie

Bikerumor Review: CamelBak Octane 18X lightweight hydration pack

noreply@blogger.com (bikefix) — Wed, 08 Sep 2010 02:00:00 +0000

It's Tuesday and time for another review. Check out our initial review here and the final review here at Bikerumor.com!

marc

Bikerumor Review: Lazer Genesis helmet

noreply@blogger.com (bikefix) — Tue, 31 Aug 2010 02:00:00 +0000

It's a new week and time for another review. Check out our initial review of Lazer's Genesis here and the final review here at Bikerumor.com!

marc

Bikerumor Initial Review: e*thirteen XC crankset

noreply@blogger.com (bikefix) — Thu, 26 Aug 2010 01:29:00 +0000

Our Bikerumor debut? Oh yes- it's up here...

bikefix Exclusive Review: DT Swiss XM 1550 Tricon wheelset

noreply@blogger.com (bikefix) — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 02:00:00 +0000

These great wheels came to my attention when I was anxiously waiting for my Easton Haven wheels to finally become available. I was interested in them already, but I was on a wide-rim-cross-section kick and the Tricon looked to be the same width as Mavic 819s so I didn’t get that excited. I later read something that made me think they might be wider and I still hadn’t seen the Havens yet so I ordered them up. When I pulled them out of the box, I was very impressed with the feel and look of the wheel, and they did look wider than an 819. Out came the digital calipers. They are about 1mm wider than the Mavic 819 rim and their ilk (like Crank Bros Cobalts, and others). I say “about”, because it was more like .8 or .9 mm wider, but the difference is perceptible to the eye (and on the trail).

I got on this wider rim kick after riding the Mavic Crossmax SX wheels, which are 2mm wider than 819’s. I was flabbergasted at how well they tracked and how fast I was able to plummet down very technical hills. The SX wheels are around 1755 grams which is light for a wheel of that size and durability, but I was hoping to find a wheel that was lighter for my long distance go-to bike: a Maverick Durance. At a published 1550 grams (mine weighed about 1580) and slightly wider than normal, the DT’s were an excellent choice for my Durance.

The name “Tricon” is taken from “triple connection”, and refers to the spoke pattern. In every set of three spokes, you have one radial spoke and two crossed spokes. Supposedly, radial spokes are good for lateral stiffness and crossed spokes are better for torque transmission, so DT has covered all the bases here. Part of the design called for straight-pull spokes and DT found a clever way to attach them to the rim using little boat-shaped inserts that only penetrate the top section of the rim. This also allowed DT to make their first truly Tubeless ready rim- yeah! They got a lot of flak over the last 4-5 years for not having a true “tubeless” wheel system (at least from me they did). We really only like tubeless wheels here at bikefix.

Out on the trail I have been very impressed by the Tricons. They are responsive and precise. They go where you point them and they rarely complain- I have heard the spokes make some noise under extreme breaking but they always feel fine when I grab them. They roll very smoothly and feel about as light as the scale says they are. The extra width of the rim is noticeable in the tire while cornering. It makes for very precise steering which is great but the drawback is that it takes a while for your reactions to catch on to what is happening. I found myself making more steering corrections than usual because every little input made more of a difference on the ground- then I would have to correct that. The stiff, precise wheel makes a plush fork that much more important.

The Tricons have two new technologies that are as important (maybe) as rim width. One is the 2-piece hub system which allows DT to use higher spoke tensions without deforming the hub shell. According to DT, when high tensions deform the hub shell, it can have a negative effect on the bearings that are pressed into it. The DT Tricon wheels isolate these stresses from the bearings so that they can perform optimally. Whatever the reason, they do roll smoothly. The second new tech is the concave rim shoulder. This is supposed to counteract forces that the tires and spokes put on the rim. Again, I don’t know if it works but these are very stiff wheels which have very little noticeable deflection. The XM1550s are as stiff as wheels that weigh much, much, more.

DT has these wheels squarely aimed at the Mavic Crossmax series (the ST in particular) and in my opinion they have completely destroyed the Mavics- these are wider, lighter, and they feel stiffer to me. Of course, Mavic has been sitting on their butts for the last few years and haven’t pushed their wheel tech forward much (especially on the mountain side), so some competition may be just around the corner.

Yes, The Tricon’s are more expensive but if you can afford Crosmax ST’s you can cough up the extra for the DT’s- especially when you consider DT hub durability over Mavic’s. Be aware that the Tricons are not compatible with 6-bolt rotors unless you use adaptors- which were supplied with my wheels, but I haven’t seen anywhere that they are officially included when purchased. They are priced somewhat impolitely at $1300.

charlie

www.dtswiss.com

bikefix Exclusive Review: Park Tool TW-5 torque wrench

noreply@blogger.com (bikefix) — Tue, 17 Aug 2010 02:00:00 +0000

Despite relying on them extensively in my professional life, I for a long time put off the purchase of my own torque wrench. Its not that I didn't think them valuable- I knew that they were- but the prices were always a bit high for a non-essential (or, more accurately, non-fun) purchase. The decision to take the plunge was made for me one day when a carbon fiber handlebar's response to a new brake lever install was the chilling of fibers breaking. It was time.

As cycling components get lighter and more precisely engineered, the importance of proper installation increases exponentially. No one really wants to return to the days of customers breaking thin-walled aluminum handlebars or seatposts on the road or trail. Component manufacturers are doing ever better jobs at putting material where it's needed and removing it where it isn't. Because components are built to have just enough material to meet their intended use, the way in which they mate has become increasingly critical. Going apeshit on fasteners in order to prevent loosening is a good way to damage components and ensure that parts will fail sooner than intended.

Of course, all of this presumes that manufacturers are basing all of those installation torques neatly laser marked our parts on something, be it theory, experiments, or experience. We have noted in the past when identical parts (sold under different brand names) have different installation torques, which does make us wonder...

In any case, the destruction of a $150 handlebar made me reconsider the value of a $124 investment in a torque wrench, and that's what Park's TW-5 costs. A Taiwanese-made ratcheting breakover (or "clicker") style torque wrench, the TW-5 can be set to apply 3-15Nm of torque through its 1/4in drive. I ordered mine through a local shop given its competitive price and Park's reputation for high quality tools. At the same time, I also ordered the company's SBS-1 metric socket set to ensure that it could communicate with the various Allen and Torx fasteners on my bikes.

The TW-5's adjustment is made through a reasonably easy to read modified micrometer-style knob (major increments are viewed through a small window). There is a metric-to-imperial conversion chart on the body and the whole thing comes in a nice hard case with a 1/4-to-3/8in drive adapter. A note about tool cases (and Park is hardly alone here): Why on Earth can't they make a pocket or slot for the folded up instruction sheet in the case itself? Just sitting the manual on top of the tool virtually ensures that it will be discarded, especially in a working shop environment. In any case...

In use, my biggest complaint about the TW-5 (aside from having to remove and keep track of the manual every time I pull it out of its case) has more to do with the SBS-1 socket set than the wrench itself. Because the low-range wrench uses a 1/4in drive and the socket set 3/8in drive, it means the the provided adapter is needed with every use. Of course, the wrench doesn't fit in the case with the adapter mounted, so that's one more step towards making its use less instinctive. In addition, a couple of the SBS-1's Allen bits have already begun to round off- disappointing from a company like Park (and for the $38 asking price). I'd recommend looking at other companies for a (1/4in drive) socket set that will meet your needs.

Though the modified micrometer style adjuster may be easier for lay mechanics to read, the TW-5 seems no better made or worse than similarly-priced micrometer style torque wrenches I've purchased from McMaster Carr. That doesn't make it a bad deal- the TW-5 seems like a well-made tool and my complaints really center around the case and sockets. Add in Park's reputation for standing behind their product and it's a pretty safe bet even if something were to go wrong. Neither complaint (except the rounded hex tools) impact the tool's primary function, which is helping to ensure that lightweight and torque-critical parts are installed properly and in doing so preventing costly and dangerous failures- something the TW-5 does well.

marc

www.parktool.com

bikefix Initial Review: Mavic Notch jersey

noreply@blogger.com (bikefix) — Thu, 12 Aug 2010 02:00:00 +0000

Not long ago, Mavic did a total makeover when it comes to their cycling apparel. Formerly responsible for the Adidas line of cycling clothing, Mavic chose not to renew their licensing rights and instead market the range under their own name. Mavic reworked the whole clothing line and the Notch jersey is one of the results of this new crop of clothing. Like the Tempo shoes I previously reviewed, it’s a quality piece of gear.

The Notch is considered their “Technical all mountain Jersey.” You can tell just from looking at the photo on Mavic’s website that it is a very breathable material. This is one of the qualities that drew my attention. It’s so breathable that you can almost see flesh underneath. It’s almost like riding without the jersey at all. I don’t know how the industry measures breathability in fabrics, but this thing must be close to the measurement for “naked”. The fabric is called “Airwick SL” and it seems fairly tough too. I smacked a sharp-ish tree branch with my torso and it gave the jersey a small snag on the front but it shows no other sign of the incident.

Of course Mavic had to blunder it with the colors. One of my pet peeves with apparel manufacturers is when they offer a great, high-tech, quality piece of hot-weather clothing that they then offer only in dark colors. OK- Mavic does offer a red version but you have to really like standing out because it is very red. The other two colors are black and "Kommando" (olive). I hate when companies do this- solar gain is real anywhere, but at altitude it‘s huge. I chose the olive color because I can’t wear that much red.

The fit is a bit small. I ordered a USA size XL knowing that Mavic tends to have that Euro-trim fit, but the Mavic person got confused and sent me an international size XL- which is a USA Large. It still fits quite well but I would like to see a tad more length to it (which I would have gotten with the XL). It has on long zipper across the back that opens up two separate mesh pockets. It isn’t the easiest zipper to open all the way, but like the rest of the jersey, it seems to be of high quality. I do like that I don’t seem to feel the zipper under my backpack when riding, which is sometimes a problem when you mix hydration packs and rear pockets.

If Mavic offers its “hot weather” trail jersey in a couple other colors that don’t absorb the sun as much, the Notch should be a hit for them. I like the notch a lot but I reach for other jerseys first. Yours for $ 60.

charlie

www.mavic.com

bikefix Exclusive Review: Geax Saguaro 26x2.2 TNT tire

noreply@blogger.com (bikefix) — Tue, 10 Aug 2010 02:00:00 +0000

In the lead up to any sort of event- be it a big ride, road trip, or even the occasional XC race- the thing I fret about the most is tire choice. Knowing just much difference the right tire can make for a big day out usually means that I'm in and out of the workshop, looking at the available tires, and (internally or with fellow rubber fetishists) debating the merits of each. In the recent lead up to a loose, rocky, and brutal cross country race this past weekend, I went back and forth over the respective merits speed, traction, sidewall strength, and rim protection and (once trail conditions were confirmed as largely dry) chose to leave a well-worn 2.2in Geax Saguaro TNT tire on the rear wheel of my cross country bike.

Now, I'll be the first to admit that I'm not much of a racer. Sure, I can hold my own if a course doesn't require too much dirt road riding- but I'm really most at home on challenging terrain. As fun and fast as lightweight tires can be, I've come to realize (at considerable expense) that I don't have the finesse needed to spare paper-thin tires or superlight wheelsets from the punishment that New Mexico's loose, sharp rocks seem designed to inflict. For that reason, if there is any aggressive riding to be done, a fatter tire with fairly sturdy sidewalls goes a long way toward reducing mid-ride wheel truing and flat fixing.

Since its introduction a couple of years ago, Geax's TNT tire casing has become my hands-down favorite. It's not as light as many companies' "tubeless ready" casings- but it is much more deserving of that label. The casing is much closer to the UST end of the spectrum and I would argue that TNT casings are stronger than many companies' full tubeless offerings. Because they seem relatively thorn- and cactus-resistant, I also see ridiculously long sealant life in TNT tires- the goop just isn't called upon to deal with the little stuff, so there tends to be a good deal available when it's really needed.

The Saguaro itself is a fast-rolling tread design that provides what I would consider moderate levels of forward and cornering traction. On the rear wheel. A few years ago, I found the 29er Saguaro to wash out too readily on the front wheel- and the 26in version is no different. On the rear, however, the Saguaro provides a bit more driving traction than a full-on race tire with very little loss of speed. More importantly, it breaks loose predictably, allowing for a bit of controlled drift action and rear wheel steering. I'm not sensitive enough to notice the difference in rolling resistance between "speed" and "traction" orientations, so tend to run the Saguaro in "traction" mode until the knobs are all eaten away and there's more traction available the other way 'round. Still, in loose conditions, I find myself modulating power more with the Saguaro than I'd like to keep it from slipping. That's not altogether unexpected with fast rolling tires- but makes the tire better suited to those who sit & spin rather than mash the pedals.

On normal XC-width mountain bike rims (Bontrager Race X Lites in this case), the Saguaro's 2.2in claimed width seems plausible- it's not noticeably wider or narrower than other 2.2s. The 730g claimed weight won't have the racers salivating- but it's hardly obscene for a wide-ish, durable tubeless tire. The Aramid Racing 3D compound is a durable 60 durometer- again, it won't get anyone too excited but is probably a good choice. After over a year's use, the tire's main wear area is absolutely the shoulder tread. Despite staying away from the use of fast-wearing soft rubber on the cornering knobs, they haven't held up as well as the rest of the tire- I can't help but think that some work in that area might keep the knobs from being undermined so quickly (and might even help the tire corner better).

At the moment, my only real argument against the Saguaro is that it's been eclipsed by its stablemate, the AKA. Using the same TNT casing and a dual-compound tread, the high-knob 2.2in not only corners better than the Saguaro, but it drives better, rolls faster, and weighs less. A reader recently asked me my thoughts about the Saguaro and I recommended that he try the AKA instead. After riding the tire in Southern California, his feedback was that "It was a bit of a surprise, but the AKA seemed to outperform the Saguaro in every way. The Saguaros have a more steam roller feeling, but that's not really the feeling I'm looking for on my XC bike," which about sums up my feelings as well. When the Saguaro finally gives up the ghost, the AKA will certainly take it's place. Geax Saguaro (and AKA) TNT tires run under $45 apiece, making them a great deal as well.

marc

Ryan from Geax has been in touch since our review and noted that the AKA require a bit of sand, loam or other penetrable surface to work well- otherwise they can be a bit squirmy. In those conditions, the Saguaro would be their recommendation. Thanks Ryan!

www.geax.com

bikefix Exclusive: One Reviewer’s Take on the 29er vs. 26er Debate

noreply@blogger.com (bikefix) — Wed, 04 Aug 2010 02:00:00 +0000

I recently got a kind of garbled question after reviewing a pair of Edge handlebars. This person asked a few questions, one of which was how I like 29ers over 26ers (if this sounds foreign- I’m talking about wheel diameters). This is, of course, one of the big questions (and debates) occurring in the mountain bike media and world right now. I thought I would take a stab at clearing the air, since I seem to be one of the few people who enjoys both wheel sizes.

One of the things I hear proponents of 29ers saying all the time is “there is no comparison, they are just better and faster” or something along those lines. This just isn’t true. Don’t get me wrong, many times it is true. In fact it may be true more often than not, but the blanket statement isn’t correct. 29ers tend to be faster on many trails, but that’s what it comes down to, the trail. If trails are tight, really technical, and have long uphills and long downhills, 29ers don’t shine quite as brightly. A large part of this is because hardtails don’t do as well on really technical climbing, and most 29ers out there these days are hardtails (for reasons we will discuss below). So half of the 29 vs. 26 arguments come down to what trails you like to ride or what type of trails are even available to you. If you live in Wisconsin or Kansas, you might feel that 29ers are vastly superior- and for you, you’d likely be right. The problem is that some of us live in places where we have trails that show the strengths and weaknesses of both. We, Albuquerque riders that is, have a foothills trail system that 29ers absolutely fly on, but we also have trails in the Otero area that will punish 29ers (hardtails in particular). We actually got a former racer and 29er fanatic to ride this area and he admitted that he could see where a 26 inch wheel would be beneficial. Trail type is important to keep in mind when discussing 29er vs. 26er.

One of the big untruths spreading around the internet and in print is that a 29er has a larger contact patch with the ground. Here in the US, pressure is measured in PSI, which stands for “pounds per square inch” and can be understood to be a measure of the amount of weight that can be supported by a square inch of tire. Basically, if you are riding with the same pressure in your 26inch tire as you are in your 29er, the contact patch will have the same area. A 29er will have a differently shaped contact patch of course, and this could be either good or bad, but no study has been done on this aspect. My impression is that the 29er will have a longer but slightly narrower and longer contact patch and the 26er a shorter but slightly wider patch. It then seems that the 29er might give more forward traction while the 26er might give better cornering traction, but I am just theorizing here. My editor-in-arms feels that the opposite is true because he can corner better on some 29er tires than on identical 26er tires. This is an interesting observation and maybe he is right, but there are too many variables and we haven’t even tried to figure out a way to test this. His observation could be something as simple as the fact that the circumference of the 29er tire is effectively turning slower than a 26er at a given speed, which means it won’t break away as quickly, or maybe it just feels faster, or perhaps the tires aren’t as identical as we thought. The point is that the contact area is the same, even if the shape is different. Interestingly, the trend on in the road world is towards shorter and wider contact patches. HED have done research that suggest that such a contact patch can significantly decreases rolling resistance and enable riders to run lower tire pressures.

We’ve also heard it said that 29in tires are less prone to pinch flats than similarly-sized 26in tires. Because the ability of a tire to stand off the sort of impacts that cause pinch flats is directly related to the cross section of the tire (generally its width, but here really the distance from the tread to the rim), the pressure being run, and the construction of the tire (especially the stiffness of the sidewall), we’re going to call BS on this claim. The 29er’s lower approach angle has very little impact on how a tire ‘looks’ to a square-edged rock or curb- that rock has to travel through the same amount of tire either way.

Frame builders have to make some compromises when they build 29ers. On hardtails they are mostly minor and some are getting sorted out. Nobody we can think of has quite figured out how to make great 29er full-suspension bikes though. Yes, they are getting better, and there are some examples out there that are very nice and fun to ride, but unless you are about 6’1 or taller, compromise is the name of the game with full-suspension 29ers. This is part of the reason there aren’t that many suspended 29ers on the market- packaging already complex and flex-prone suspension systems as well as larger wheels is a challenge. The gap is narrowing, but there are mechanical realities about long, unsupported spans that make working around a bicycle’s fixed points (cranks, saddle, handlebars) that much harder. In a weight-obsessed industry (obsessing over weight is we’ve argued against), there is also the unavoidable fact that a 29er will weigh more than a comparable 26in bike. Sure, there are 21lb full suspension 29ers available, but those are so far outside of most riders’ financial reality that they may as well be imaginary.

There are also a couple of other minor niggles with the 29er format. The first is that the lack of true UST tubeless tires and wheels. We are huge fans of tubeless tires here at bikefix, and there just aren’t that many options for 29er. Yes, there are a lot of riders doing the “ghetto” tubeless thing but that is very hit and miss, as even its biggest supporters will admit. The second thing is that, like frames, 29er wheels are inherently weaker wheels. This isn’t a very big issue because people seem to have accepted higher weights so we aren’t seeing many breakages, but it is a fact nonetheless and something to think about if you are a beefcake or tend to be hard on wheels. The exception that proves this rule is the three years’ use that Marc has gotten out of a 1600g 29er wheelset built using sensible hubs and road rims.

I’ll be honest and say that, despite having owned one, I haven’t yet spent a lot of time on full suspension 29ers, but I’m keenly aware of the limitations of the hardtail 29ers which I own- and the knowledge that the full suspension 29ers have even more limitations. One of the bigger issues with 29ers is the height of the handlebars from the ground, and relative to the saddle. The larger size of the wheel adds to the length of the fork, this in turn raises the cockpit. For those of us who are medium to short in stature though, the saddle height doesn’t change much, and this means it feels kind of low compared to the handlebar height. This discrepancy is hard to overcome as most frame builders have come to realize that there is a limited range of heights from the ground that a bottom bracket can be, and still ride well. That is why you see many of us 29er owners (myself included) trying to lower the bars in some way. Many riders use inverted stems (which I personally dislike) and others try all kinds of different handlebars, or really short forks (rigid ones even). In an attempt to combat this problem, designers started building shorter head-tubes on their frames so they wouldn’t ride as high. This however, allows more flex to creep into designs that already had flex issues due to the taller wheels and places even greater stresses on head tubes, headsets, and steerer tubes. The new generation of suspension forks with tapered steer tubes will help this a lot, but the issue remains for now.

Another issue that exists with 29ers and in particular FS 29ers is the length of their wheelbase. If you try and keep it shorter to feel more nimble, you run into a bevy of problems- tire clearance, chainring clearance, and downhill ride characteristics to name a few. The further back you push the wheel from there, the less nimble the bike becomes. The extra room needed on a suspension bicycle exaggerates this. This makes the bike more stable though and that is a good thing, and I embrace that. That is also one of the many reasons 29ers feel different than 26ers. In turn, I feel that is the single best attribute that a 29ers have- they feel different. It is a very different ride than a 26in bike, and I dig it for that. I think that’s why so many people that have been in the mountain bike industry for so long are into 29ers- they dig it man! This feature alone is well worth all the growing pains that 29ers have gone through (and will continue to go through).

In the end, you may live in part of the country that favors one wheel size or the other, or like me, you may dwell in a region that has trails for both. I’m just tired of hearing that 29ers are the “answer” or that they “destroy 26ers.” While we’re all for people being enthusiastic about their bikes, 29ers are not the magic bullet that some claim. They are both great and if you are an enthusiast who rides in a variety of terrain, you will probably end up with a bike of each.

charlie

This is just the beginning of the conversation. bikefix would like to invite anyone to weigh in on Charlie's points with their questions or opinions. Let 'em rip...

bikefix Initial Review: RockShox Revelation Team Air U-Turn suspension fork

noreply@blogger.com (bikefix) — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 02:00:00 +0000

Despite seemingly being headed for 'also ran' status as recently as 5 years ago, RockShox are back and earning more and more respect with each model introduction. As part of the SRAM empire, the brand has some serious engineering and manufacturing weight behind it- and it shows. Despite loving virtually everything about the previous generation Revelation 426, that fork was eventually retired. For the sake of variety, I spent some time on Magura's Menja and Marzocchi's 44 Micro Ti- both of which have excellent small bump action- and Fox's '09 32 TALAS- which doesn't. Still, princess that I am, I found faults with all three and decided to try the second generation 2010 Revelation Team.

I have to think that much of my fork pickiness is due to my light weight. Part of the reason that I often return to RockShox forks, and recommend them to smaller riders, is the company's use of dual, opposing air springs. At 140lb, I'm well below the average rider weight that those suspension companies base their fixed negative springs' specifications on. Adjustable negative springs, on the other hand, allow a good deal of tuning flexibility. The idea is that the two springs push against one another and reach an equilibrium somewhere near the top of travel. Think about a spring pushing a weight against a hard stop. It takes a bit to get it to move against the spring, doesn't it? Now, picture the same weight suspended between two opposing springs. You can imagine that it would move much more freely than the first weight, right? Being adjustable, the negative spring can allow the rider to run more air pressure (for a more progressive feel) yet balance that with a higher negative spring pressure, which maintains small bump sensitivity. Want a more linear feel? Less positive pressure, less negative pressure. Want to feel all race-y and move only on big bumps? More positive pressure, less negative.

The second generation Revelation range gets a redesigned chassis (though still around 32mm stantions), complete with Power Bulge'd lowers. At 3.8lb, my Revelation weighs just about the same as my 120mm Reba with its remote lockout. Not bad at all. The lowers are available in 9mm (QR), 20mm thru axle and (for 2011) 15QR standards. It seems as though my own reluctance to adopt the 20mm standard has paid off as with RockShox on board we'll have a more common XC- and trail-oriented thru axle to play with. Until that becomes available, I've gone with the 9mm version. I've heard comments from larger, more aggressive riders than myself that the current Revelation's chassis is impressively rigid. Using a DT RWS 9mm thru axle, I can't say that I've noticed any flex or objectionable fore-aft movement- nor should I at my weight. The Team differentiates itself from lesser Revelations through the use of RockShox's BlackBox Motion Control damper, which sports separate high- and low-speed rebound circuits, a titanium spring, and "just dead sexy" carbon fiber lockout knob.

This particular fork uses Rock Shox's Air U-Turn travel adjustment system, a simple wingnut atop the left leg that winds the travel between 150 and 120mm. On my 5in trail bike, I tend to leave the fork wound in 4-5 half-turns, or at ~135mm. That leaves me in a good place for most climbing and descending. For longer, rougher descents, I'll wind it out to 150mm or down towards 120 for that raked cog railway feel. Air U-Turn seems to have disappeared from the Revelation range for 2011, which is a shame. It just seems that when going to a 150/120mm 2-Step travel adjust, it seems like some versatility is lost- and from what I hear, a good deal of complexity is added.

Back to the present, though. When set up with matching positive and negative spring pressures in accordance with the sticker on the left leg, the new Revelation delivers performance on par with its predecessor. Racers will be appalled by the amount of movement allowed by suspension unhindered by platform dampers or excessive low-speed compression damping. That said, on both low speed climbs and hairy high speed descents, the Revelation conforms to the trail like few other forks. The relatively high pressures (90psi in my case, vs 45-60 with Fox, Magura and Marzocchi) don't cause the stiction that might be expected and help the spring to ramp up as travel approaches its end, preventing bottoming on all but the worst line choices. The traction that small bump sensitivity provides isn't only beneficial on fast descents, but also on long rides, where fatigue is reduced, and loose climbs, where less effort is needed to hold a line. Good form can help to keep bobbing under control, but climbs are best approached seated, with a relatively high cadence. Repeat after me: spin and win.

Initially, I have to say that was a bit disappointed with the new Revelation's suspension performance. Over the past 5 months' riding, I've decided that coming off the incredibly plush Marzocchi's 44 made the boxfresh Rock Shox feel a bit harsh by comparison. With dozens of hours of use freeing up the seals, however, the fork feels much better than it did when new. While it can't compete with the 'Zoke's convincing hovercraft impression, the Revelation is still one of the best small bump forks I've ridden. I do have to wonder if the less-complex damper on Race level forks would be a bit more active than the Team's BlackBox version. Though a U-Turn Race was listed in RockShox's 2010 literature, I've never been able to find it listed by any of the major distributors.

No product is without flaws, though, and my Revelation's seems to be leaky negative air seals. Every few rides or couple of weeks, the fork loses a good deal of its small bump sensitivity. Re-pressurizing the negative spring reliably makes the fork feel much better- but it's a pain (and I'm someone who usually carries a shock pump). To be fair, I haven't tried to get the problem warrantied, and am sure that RockShox would either know a quick fix or send out warranty parts quickly (SRAM is a favorite among bike shops for their warranty policies). Because the BlackBox damper doesn't feel quite as active as my Revelation 426's, I'm thinking that a change to more weight-appropriate 2.5wt oil might be in order.

All in all, the Revelation Team remains my favorite trail fork. The new chassis is stiffer than previous versions, and the additional 20mm of travel comes without any weight penalty. The price is a bit high at $705, but that seems to be a result of only selling aftermarket U-Turn Air forks in Team trim- I haven't noticed any real benefit to the BlackBox damper and would suggest that riders looking for a fixed-travel fork start there and put the $200 saved away for a rainy day. With 2-Step forks already becoming available and 2010 forks being discounted, now might be the time for anyone looking for an adjustable-travel trail fork to buy. For trail and enduro riding, I still haven't found a fork that I'd rather ride.

marc

www.rockshox.com

bikefix Initial Review: WTB Wolverine AM TCS 26x2.2 tire

noreply@blogger.com (bikefix) — Tue, 27 Jul 2010 02:00:00 +0000

Among the bikefix crew, we probably spend more time talking about tires than any other piece of equipment. Maybe we live in an unusually difficult area, traction wise. Maybe we ask more of our tires than they were ever designed to give. Maybe we're just picky. In any case, we're always on the lookout for tires that are well suited for moderately-paced, all-day riding on trails that range from sandy to loose and rocky to loamy and smooth. Tubeless tires that handle a wide range of terrain predictably and capably, aren't susceptible to sidewall cuts or fast wear, roll fast, but aren't particularly heavy or expensive are surprisingly hard to find.

Like most riders, I have a feeling for what looks right when it comes to tires. For my riding style and our local conditions, I'm always on the lookout for fairly high-volume tires with a large quantity of small-ish tread knobs and well-supported shoulder knobs. When I first started seeing WTB's tubeless-compatible Wolverine popping up on local bikes this spring, I was pretty excited. The WTB tires that I've ridden over the past several years have been excellent for New Mexico conditions- with one exception: the company's reluctance to embrace tubeless tires. For 2010, having either come around to tubeless themselves or grown tired of loyal customers jumping ship, the company has released a number of tires in one or more of three tubeless configurations. While we tend to prefer true UST tubeless casings for their ease of sealing and generally more substantial sidewalls, and avoid "tubeless ready" systems for their often fragile casings, WTB seem to have split the difference with their AM (All Mountain) TCS (Tubeless Compatible System) tires.

The AM TCS casing takes a standard tire, adds a tubeless-ready bead and integrates a thin "Inner Peace" nylon layer to the sidewall. This layer is claimed to protect the tire from damage as well as to reduce sidewall flex. The claimed 700g weight and $60 price seemed reasonable for a high-volume tubeless tire, so when the last of my Specialized Roll Xs finally died, I decided to order one to try.

Before pulling the Roll X off of my trail bike, I couldn't help but mount the Wolverine on a spare wheel to get a good look at it. The first thing I noticed was that it is the widest 2.2in tire I've ever seen. In fact, it's just about wide as a Conti Mountain King 2.4 and darn close to WTB's own Mutano 2.4. This is one big tire. Also, the AM TCS tire held air just fine for about a week without any sealant (WTB recommend against using it this way). It's also considerably heavier than advertised- mine came in at right about 800g.

On the rear wheel, the Wolverine is fantastic. The low profile center tread rolls fast and provides plenty of straight-ahead grip on everything but loose-over-hard sand. In just about every condition I've ridden over the past couple of months, the tire's cornering grip has exceeded by nerve. The Wolverine is actually the first tire that I've ridden that holds on longer in corners than the Schwalbe Nobby Nic front tire it's been paired with. It takes some foolish and unlikely forward weight transfers to to provoke the Wolverine into sideways slides- and even then it hooks back up very quickly.

The AM TCS casing does seem a bit on the soft side- I've been feeling the rim hit rocks much more than usual lately- but a few extra psi (to around 28 or 30 under my 145lb) has made a big difference, without seeming to hurt cornering ability. As is often the case with dual compound tires (here 60 shore A in the center, 50A on the shoulders), the Wolverine's cornering knobs are starting to show wear much earlier than I'd like. While the rest of the tire still looks new, the shoulder knobs are already starting to degrade and are on course to be the tire's weak link. I had planned on moving the Wolverine to the front wheel to get a feel for its performance there, but will have to order a second to find out (rather than getting the wrong impression from a worn tire). Our guy Mike in Arizona reports that the tire can be prone to washing out when used on the front of the bike- but his riding is generally a bit sandier than ours.

So far, I'm very impressed with the Wolverine. I'm glad that WTB have decided to embrace tubeless tires- they're one of the few companies who seem to get dry conditions riding. Looking at their range, I may order a UST Wolverine to replace the AM TCS version I've been using. With a heavier casing still and 60A rubber all over, it should help to reduce rim impacts at low-sh pressures and wear a bit better. If that tire comes in close to its advertised 840g weight, that would be great and not far from the AM TCS tire. If it is also 100g overweight, I might rule that option out. Wear issues aside (and those haven't caused any problems yet), the Wolverine has been a near-perfect rear tire. The price is reasonable and the tread design is exactly what I've been looking for. Charlie also has a set on order and we'll report back once we have some more time on the trail.

marc

www.wtb.com

bikefix Exclusive Review: TruVativ Noir XC 1.1 crankset

noreply@blogger.com (bikefix) — Thu, 22 Jul 2010 02:00:00 +0000

After the Race Face cranks I had been using for singlespeeding had an issue (see review), I was forced to find another crankset to use. Truvativ’s version is bred from their Noir XC 3.3 carbon mountain crankset but is a singlespeed (SS) specific crank. This was encouraging to me since the cranks they replaced shattered under singlespeed use. The Truvativs aren’t heavy at 740 grams (w/BB) but I would think Truvativ could make them a bit lighter considering they are carbon and only sport one chainring. Still, with the included carbon fiber guard, the Noir XC 1.1s are some of the lightest SS specific cranks out there, and I wanted to build this SS as light as I could while still maintaining strength and durability. These cranks are another case where the external bottom bracket is integrated with the crankset and the whole package looks and feels very solid and well made. For extra strength, these cranks have an aluminum spine which the carbon is wrapped or molded around.

After riding these for almost a year now, I can say that they are quite nice. I guess one of the best things I can say is that they do the job so well that I never think about them. I haven’t had one issue, or any other reason to fiddle with them or examine them. They are plenty stiff, although I can’t say how much compared to other cranks, but stiff enough that I feel no flex. They are good looking but not as sexy as some other cranks on the market. All in all, a very capable, light, tough singlespeed crank. They won’t be coming off my bike for along time. They are priced at $ 422 (plus $35 for a standard bottom bracket or $195 for a ceramic bottom bracket) but I have seen them for less.

charlie

www.truvativ.com

bikefix Initial Review: Stem CAPtain thermometer & clock

noreply@blogger.com (bikefix) — Tue, 20 Jul 2010 02:00:00 +0000

While we're not 'unboxing' or 'first look' types here at bikefix, seeing as the Stem CAPtain is one of the most commented-on accessories I've installed in a long time, I figured that we'd do a quick post. The Stem CAPtain idea is a simple one. Replace headset top cap with a clock. Or thermometer. Or compass. Even a picture frame. It's a bit of a why didn't I think of that kind of thing- It's not like there's anything else that needs to go there.

We first heard about Stem CAPtain from a regular bikefix reader. A small Boulder-based company, Stem CAPtain are built around a distaste for bike computers and watches and one slick idea. The reader put Stem CAPtain in touch and they soon sent out a couple of CAPtains for us to check out.

The Stem CAPtains make the best use of those little prize eggs we've seen in ages (well, beyond prizes). Seeing as I already had a clock in my bike computer, I wasted no time mounting the thermometer to my most-used mountain bike. Installation was simple- the thermometer pops right out of its base, which replaces the stem cap. Plan on 5 minutes- with breaks.

This is one of the most commented-on addition that I've made to my bike in ages. In just a couple of weeks, the Stem CAPtain attracted as much interest and as many compliments as a $995 Crank Brothers wheelset. People love it.

The thermometer itself seems to work just fine. Being black (white-faced thermometers are available), it does seem susceptible to solar gain and can read a bit high here in the desert- but in the woods it seems accurate to me. Maybe it's not the most useful information to have on hand, but it does lend some credibility to fish stories about hot summer days, cold snaps in the mountains, and below-freezing late night 24-hour race laps. The analog clock is a bit harder for me to read than a digital bike computer, but is undeniably classier and would be perfect on a single speed or fixed gear. It's on the bike of a computer-averse tester and we'll be back with his comments in a bit. The compass seems as though it would be the most valuable version in the backcountry, and Stem CAPtain are working on a new model, which we're excited to try.

At $25, the Stem CAPtain is a clean, unobtrusive way to bring time, temperature, or directional information along. It's a slick idea and (this has to be the first time I've said this about anything) would make a great gift for a riding buddy or chronically late cycling spouse. We'll let you know how they hold up!

marc

www.stemcaptain.com

bikefix Initial Review: Spot 2 Satellite GPS Messenger

noreply@blogger.com (bikefix) — Thu, 15 Jul 2010 02:00:00 +0000

Over 20+ years of mountain biking, I have been extremely fortunate. Not just for the experiences I've had, friendships I've made, and places I've seen, but also in that my riding has been largely uneventful. My encounters with wildlife and terra firma, while occasionally frightening, have generally been minor, close to home, and/or in the company of others. Still, as I and my riding companions get older and our schedules busier, I find myself on more and more solo rides, often on little-traveled trails and outside of cell phone range.

After an old friend took a very fast trip down a mountain (followed by a very slow trip to the hospital) after a simple stumble and after literally decades of rolling the dice, it seemed like it was time to look into a little insurance. Between cost and size, a satellite phone was out of the question. The satellite phone network's coverage, however, is worlds better than cell phones (which I do tend to carry). Enter the Spot 2 Satellite GPS Messenger. The Spot 2 is Spot's second-generation personal locator. For $170, the little device (a bit larger than a deck of cards) uses a GPS chip and the satellite phone network's messaging capability to send a variety of one-way messages to a central server. From there, and depending on urgency, those messages go to loved ones' cell phones, their e-mail accounts, or to emergency services.

Though they've been around for a couple of years, Spot's devices are the first that I've seen targeted at the consumer. The compact size and easy use mean that it's an unobtrusive little guy to carry around. While the Spot isn't on on every ride, it has wrung dozens of hours out of the three included AA batteries. Just like I started carrying a camera on my rides when they became small and cheap enough, Spot does the same for brings satellite messaging. After all, a fancy sat phone or shortwave radio is no good if it's too big to bring along. Since buying my Spot in April, it has been along on every ride and a couple of hikes and has been far from a burden.

Setting up the Spot 2 was relatively easy as well. I was able to enter two custom messages (an "OK" and an "I'm fine but running late" in my case) to be sent to a couple of e-mail and cell phone accounts. In addition to the basic $99/year service (which is what forwards these messages on), I went with a GEOS search and rescue insurance (up to $50,000 extraction-related expense coverage, up to twice per year) for $13 per year and progress tracking & mapping for a pricey $50 per year.

At a little under $1 per month, the additional GEOS coverage seems well worth it- those helicopter rides can get pricey. Fortunately, I can't report on how it works first-hand. The progress tracking & mapping, on the other hand, has been a bit of a disappointment. Unless your spouse/parole officer needs to be able to see your whereabouts at any time, the progress tracking just doesn't have the resolution needed to be very useful to cyclists. With one check-in every 20-35 minutes, it might make sense for boaters or hikers on a well-defined trail, but I wasn't able to reliably map any of my regular rides with the service.

Still, for under $10 per month, it seems as though the basic service and S&R coverage make a lot of sense. The messages sent to e-mail and cell phones (as text messages) include GPS locations and links to Google Maps, which have been very accurate in my experience. "OK" and custom messages get the lowest priority on the satellite network, but still land within 10-15 minutes. Loved ones will be far happier knowing you're safe (just don't send them a mountaintop "I'm OK!" message when playing hooky on a workday). More importantly, having the ability to summon emergency services within a reasonable period of time when things go pear shaped can make a huge difference in one's chances of survival. That's pretty cool and puts the Spot 2 well on it's way to being a bikefix Pick. I'll report back if anything exciting happens- but am hoping not to have to.

marc

www.findmespot.com

bikefix Initial Review: Giant Trance Advanced SL 0 mountain bike

noreply@blogger.com (bikefix) — Tue, 13 Jul 2010 02:00:00 +0000

Giant’s new top of the line Trance Advanced model is finally filtering into stores across the country. After seeing it many times in magazines, I finally have one of my own. I had 2009’s top Trance too, but sold it when I heard they were going to make a carbon fiber version. It was a great bike and I don’t have anything against aluminum but that frame was a little too heavy for its travel and size. It was a nice excuse to get a new bike too. I need a lot of those excuses.

I have to admit, I was pretty excited to get this bike. On paper it looks like it is capable of doing triple duty as an XC race bike, a marathon race bike, and capable trail bike- all while weighing ~24 pounds right out of the box. It comes pretty tricked-out from Giant: Fox 32 TALAS RLC fork, Race Face Next SL cranks, XTR derailleurs/shifters, Mavic Crossmax ST wheels (not the lightest, although not heavy, but UST ready and very trail worthy), Avid Elixir CR Mag brakes, and a very nice Giant branded carbon seat post, stem, and handlebar. Although it comes with the respected Kenda Nevegal tires, they weren’t tubeless versions (which I require) so I tossed the Kendas in the tire bin at the bike shop and installed Geax AKA tubeless ready tires on a set of Crank Brothers Cobalt wheels- whose blue color nicely matches all the blue accents and parts on the Trance. The Cobalts are a tad lighter than the Crossmax’s but the AKA tires were a bit heavier than the Kendas so it was about a wash, weight-wise.

The first thing I noticed was that the Maestro suspension felt just like I remembered it- which is a good thing. The next thing I noticed was that this bike is pretty damn stiff. That is saying something because I’m heavy and the Cobalt wheels, while not flexy, certainly aren’t the stiffest set of hoops I could put on this bike. Giant has extensive experience with carbon and is one of the few companies that can control every aspect of the process. They wanted this bike stiff and light, and they succeeded. Part of this is no doubt due to the fork frame interface- otherwise known as the steer-tube and headset. This is the first time I’ve ridden a bike equipped with the new standard steer tube size of 1.5 at the bottom tapering to a 1 1/8 at the top. Just looking at it conveys a sense of strength that the straight tubes and headsets don’t. While riding, the front end feels incredibly stiff and well controlled. In its weight class, I can’t think of anything that comes close. The Fox fork is also a 15mm thru-axle, which is fast becoming the standard for XC and trail use (as it should) and that makes a contribution to the stiffness factor as well.

The Maestro suspension is one of the better virtual pivot suspension designs out there. I’m not a suspension guru but of all the virtual pivot suspension I’ve tried, the Giant’s Maestro and Santa Cruz’s VPP feel the best. The Maestro system seems to do everything well. It’s like a student who gets 90% on all their tests- damn good all around, but you could find other students who occasionally do better on certain tests. It climbs really well and the more you hammer the more efficiently it seems to leap forward, but the bike is hampered a bit by a low bottom bracket. I’m not sure the BB is that low unweighted, but because of its liner nature, the rear shock blows through travel fairly quickly and before you know it your pedals are hitting more rocks than you’re used to. Part of this can be blamed on the fact that the Trance encourages pedaling and momentum, so I find myself taking more pedal strokes through rocky sections than I typically do. As I mentioned, the rear travel is linear but towards the end it ramps up nicely and I have yet to bottom out harshly. It descends very well and the head-tube angle plays the safe bet between to twitchy and too slack at 69.5˚. This bike likes to go fast, up or down. The most awkward moments I’ve had on it are always at slow speed, particularly on climbs. When close to stall speed it is hard to start moving again compared to other bikes. I can’t account for this and I will continue to play with the suspension settings to see if that helps. It’s not that big a deal because I don’t get into that situation very often, but it’s just something I have noticed happening.

The Giant branded bars are excellent so far. They are very comfortable to my hands with a low rise and proper width of 690mm. I’m not going to comment completely on the seat post but at this point I’m not enamored with it. I need more time to play around with it too. This is the first pair of Avid brakes I’ve tried in awhile that didn’t have vibratory issues. They are strong, like most all Avids, and pretty well-modulated and perhaps a bit wooden- but still very good.

I was not expecting to like this Fox TALAS FIT fork given what I had read about it but so far I really like it. It will get a separate review so I won’t dwell on it here. Suffice it to say that it is doing everything quite well and seems plusher than Fox forks usually are.

The shifting is very good but the Race Face rings don’t shift as well as Shimano rings. We knew that though. If you have the guns, this bike is a good candidate for a 2x10 drive train. I’ll keep it as a 3x9 till 3x10 becomes available- I like granny gears sometimes.

I don’t get to ride too many of the direct competitors to this frame. Bikefix just isn’t important enough yet to get invitations to the press camps or get lots of loaner bikes to ride for a few months. So I can’t say exactly how well the Carbon Trance stacks up against bikes from players like Specialized, Trek, and Scott- but I’m guessing quite well. The Spez four-bar isn’t getting any better, single pivot frames like the Scott have well documented strengths and weaknesses, and the Trek Fuel EX… well I don’t know. Seeing as how Giant makes the frames for at least one of these other companies, and that Giant has more control over their carbon products than any other bike company out there, I’m guessing the Trance is at the top of the heap when compared to the others (they are all quality bikes though). In the end however, it’s how much the rider likes the bike that matters. To that end, if you like to trail ride and do some racing, or race and do some trail riding- the Trance Advanced SL 0 is probably one of your best choices. The Carbon Trance retails for a hefty $6,800. Of course, so do most of the all-carbon frames of this spec from any manufacturer (the same frame is available with an XT build kit for $4,900).

charlie

www.giant-bicycles.com

bikefix Initial Review: Blackburn Mammoth mini pump

noreply@blogger.com (bikefix) — Thu, 08 Jul 2010 02:00:00 +0000

With its anodized aluminum barrel, sleek TwistGrip III head, and lifetime warranty, Blackburn's $20 Mammoth mini pump makes a great impression at the bike shop. Once free of its (entirely recyclable) packaging, its 157g make it feel reassuringly substantial and much more durable than anything else we've felt at this end of the pump price spectrum. According to Blackburn, the Mammoth is "a true mountain bike icon that fills fat tires quickly and painlessly." If only.

As we prefer here at bikefix, Blackburn's TwistGrip III pump head is designed to work either on presta or Schraeder valves (rather than both) at any given time. The reversible internals are easily set up to work on one or the other and will be familiar to most mini pumpers. The foldaway T-handle and fairly low-profile head make sliding the pump into an overstuffed pack easy and the oversized barrel has the capability to inflate high-volume tires relatively quickly (though we're guessing that the 60psi max pressure is a bit optimistic).

Out on the trail, trouble surfaced when a beginner rider broke out the Mammoth for its first use. Despite multiple tries, she couldn't get it to seal on the valve. We had a look at the pump and sure enough, she was trying to force a closed pump onto a presta valve and then open it. Confusing, to say the least, the directional arrows on the TwistGrip II head are backwards for riders who would engage the head by rotating the pump's barrel (those who rotate the head, wheel attached, around the barrel will be fine). Once the Mammoth was mounted on the valve, not two strokes were stroked before we heard a rather unladylike aw fuck! This thing pinches!

While the Mammoth's T-handle is good sized and snaps into an ergonomic pistol grip position, a moment's inattention will allow it to collapse and pinch the user's index finger between the red anodized shaft and very sharp edges of the handle slot. And it pinches. And the edges are sharp. While we didn't manage to draw blood, nobody we've handed the Mammoth to has escaped unharmed. Even without trying to inflate a tire, experienced riders pick up the Blackburn, have a fiddle, and what the hell?

The Mammoth has a good deal of potential. The price is right, it feels solid, and once one remembers to reverse the fixing instructions, mounting on a valve is easy. While it may be a mountain bike icon, and it may be capable of inflating tires quickly, the Mammoth's certainly doesn't do so painlessly. We sent its owner back to the store to pick out something a bit less dangerous.

marc

www.blackburndesign.com

bikefix Exclusive Review: Effetto Mariposa Caffelatex sealant

noreply@blogger.com (bikefix) — Tue, 06 Jul 2010 02:00:00 +0000

In the year since a local shop gave us a couple of tires' worth of Effetto Mariposa's Caffelatex sealant to try, I've fallen in to and then back out of love with the the bubbly stuff. My long-term experience suggests that that it does have its place, but isn't the best solution for all conditions (including ours). I was first interested in trying Caffelatex sealant after hearing stories about the effects that ammonia-rich sealants can have on bikes' rims. When corrosive ammonia is exposed to unprotected aluminum, it can corrode the rims of which they're made. Or so I've heard. Seeing as the jury's still out on the chemical's effects when used on tubeless setups, it seemed as though a low-ammonia or ammonia-free sealant (like Caffelatex) might be a good idea over the long haul.

Also unique is the sealant's foaming action- rather than staying liquid, Caffelatex foams within the tire, ensuring that there is always some sealant everywhere. My initial impressions were very positive. The Caffelatex stayed liquid much longer than the Stan's sealant I'd been using and I didn't experience a single flat or slow leak for over three months. I now attribute most of my success to the fantastic TNT casing on the Geax tires I was riding at the time. It turns out that the tires' casing was doing much of the work at keeping thorns and spines outside of the tire and air on the inside. Because the bombproof casing was reducing the number of small punctures that the sealant was called upon to seal, it was staying liquid much longer as well and not needing the usual refreshing every couple of months. It was only when the Geax wore out and I mounted other companies' tires that problems began to surface.

Basically, because Caffelatex foams, there is always sealant everywhere. This is probably a very good thing for those trying to 'convert' non-tubeless tires, as the foam will allow the sealant to seal small pinholes all over the porous casing. When it comes time to seal anything larger than 1mm or so in length, though, there just isn't enough sealant where it needs to be. As a result, those ffft-ffft-ffft leaks in the tread don't seal themselves while riding like they often do with Stan's. It seems like every puncture I experienced using Caffelatex took far longer to seal than with other sealants and required me to get off the bike and add air with a hand pump. Easier than replacing a tube, sure, but still a pain.

Effetto Mariposa claim that the sealant's foaming property makes the Caffelatex better able to close sidewall punctures up to 6mm long. It's a neat thought, but those claims are usually made based on ideal conditions. At this year's 24 Hours in the Old Pueblo, a nasty pinch created a pair of 3mm cuts in my tire (one at the bead, one at the tread) that Caffelatex would not seal. Granted, cuts near the bead are difficult for any sealant, but it seems as though a liquid (rather than foam) could have been shepherded to where it was in a position to seal the hole. In this case, I had to install a tube before I could continue my lap.

After having bought a second liter of Caffelatex and using more than recommended (2+ capfulls per tire), I haven't had much better luck. Small broken glass-induced punctures don't seal and I've had to blend it 1:1 with Stan's sealant to get a reasonably functional mixture. Which begs the question: why not just run something else? (The short answer: Because I have a half-liter of Caffelatex in the workshop.) The foaming action is a neat idea, but out on the trail it seems to ensure that there isn't ever enough sealant where it's needed. I really like the idea of not having ammonia in contact with my pricey wheels and tires- but not if I'm paying for that peace of mind with frequent leaks.

For anyone more focused on non-tubeless tire 'conversion,' Caffelatex could well be a good place to start. Here in the desert- and mountain-west, where rocks are sharp and abundant, it's just not up to the task. Maybe a reformulation with a bit less foaming agent and possibly some large particles (to help close bigger holes) would do the trick- when something like that is available, I'd love to try it. Thanks to our terrain, though, my rims don't last long enough to make the specter of corrosion worth the tradeoffs.

marc

www.canitoeroad.com (US)

A big thanks to Stevie at Fat Tire for our test sample!

bikefix Exclusive Review: Louis Garneau Durango baggy short

noreply@blogger.com (bikefix) — Thu, 01 Jul 2010 02:00:00 +0000

Designing a really good mountain baggy short, with integrated chamois of some sort or another, seems to be an extremely hard thing to do. There is no shortage of mediocre ones out there, but very few seem to find their way to the top of my clothes pile the way a good Lycra short will.

While they seem to be a well-made short, the Louis Garneau Durangos’ biggest problem is the shorts' chamois. The first thing I noticed when pulling on these shorts is that the Perfo HD chamois is large. It’s not thick, but it is extra generous in surface area. I could feel the sides of the very wide chamois contacting much further down my inner thigh than I’m used to. As a result, my legs push the pad around as I pedal. Rather than sitting flat against the saddle, it sort of creases down the middle and proceeds work its way between by buttocks. Across the back of the short, in the “tramp stamp” location, is printed “Louis Garneau Awakens Your Soul.” At first, I thought it was just a slogan that translated oddly from Garneau’s native French. After a few rides with these shorts, I realized that it might actually be a warning: if that was how they were going to go about it, that's not something I can say I’m very comfortable with.

Besides the expansive and disturbingly mobile chamois, the Durangos fit nicely. The size medium seems to be intended for a person about my size (6 foot tall, 155lbs). Being particularly long-legged (33 or 34” inseam) and thin waisted, I could see these shorts being quite long on some people- they were pushing the limits of too long for me (down to the bottom of my knee cap). I am much fonder of the baggy part of the short than I am of the liner. The shorts have two cargo type pockets on the bottom front of each leg. These are big enough to be useful, but poorly placed if you want to actually ride with things in the pockets- whatever is in the pocket will bounce around off your knees a lot. I appreciate pockets on my baggy shorts for the convenience of stuffing wallet, phone and keys in my shorts on my way out for a ride. The pockets’ location keeps these things within easy reach, even while driving. I then transfer these items into my pack when the ride begins, so the location of the pockets works fine for me. The outers’ Bamtex nylon/bamboo/spandex material seems very nice as well (Garneau claim that the bamboo helps to make it odor-resistant too). The crotchal region is nicely articulated and uses a good stretchy material (that’s the technical term), which rarely hangs up on the nose of the saddle, as lesser baggies often will.

I have ridden the Durango outers with different liners, and liked them quite a bit. My one concern is that they seem to be a bit warmer than similar shorts I own.

Despite a good outer, the pad in Louis Garneau’s Durango short keeps me from really wanting to wear them. I think this will be the fate of these shorts, to be used as outers paired with other liners that I am more fond of. I originally thought that the liners would no doubt get buried deeply in the short pile, and only be used when washing machine breaks down. I've since found that adding a bit of chamois butter does seem to keep the Perfo HD pad's wandering in check and I'm finding myself wearing the Durangos more and more, even in the middle of summer.

The Durango shorts retail for $110. Are they a good value? It’s hard to say. How do they compare with other shorts in that price range? I have more expensive baggies that I like less. With a better pad (or sold without the soul awakening liners for $80 or so), their value to me would be a lot higher. With the current liner, I think they are worth looking at if you are the baggy short wearing type, and especially if you happen to have long legs, a skinny waist, and a bit more booty than I do.

dan

www.louisgarneau.com